College Park, MD 2011 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA 1

Consequences of Relational Time1

A. K. T. Assis
Institute of Physics Gleb Wataghin, University of Campinas-UNICAMP
13083-859 Campinas, SP, BRAZIL
e-mail: assis@ifi.unicamp.br
homepage: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/

There are two competing formulations of time in physics. Newton defended in the Principia the utiliza-
tion of absolute time which, according to him flows equably without relation to anything external. Leibniz,
on the other hand, was against this concept and proposed relative time to replace it: As for my opinion, I have
said more than once, that I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is; that I hold it to be an order of
coexistences, as time is an order of successions. Leibniz ideas were accepted and developed by Ernst Mach in
his book The Science of Mechanics. Mach proposed to replace Newtons absolute time by the angle of rotation of
the planets relative to the frame of fixed stars.
In this work we consider the implementation of relational time and its consequences for physics. We con-
centrate our analysis in a single phenomenon, namely, the flattening of the Earth due to its diurnal rotation. We
consider the figure of the Earth in Newtonian mechanics. We point out some philosophical problems with this
classical formulation. We then present the flattening of the Earth from the point of view of Relational Mechan-
ics, which is a mathematical implementation of Machs principle utilizing Webers law for gravitation.

1
Published in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (Lulu Press, 2011), Volume 8, pp. 36-39. (18th Annual Conference of
the NPA, 6-9 July 2011 at the University of Maryland, College Park, USA).
2 Assis: Consequences of Relational Time
1. Introduction
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) presented two concepts of time in
his book Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, also known
by its first Latin name, Principia, published originally in 1687, [1]:
Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its
own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external,
and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and
common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or
unequable) measure of duration by means of motion, which is
commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a
month, a year.
In his axioms or laws of motion only absolute time should be
used.
Leibniz (1646-1716) never accepted the utilization in physics
of Newtons absolute time. He maintained that time depends on
things, being the order of successive phenomena. There is a fa-
mous correspondence between Leibniz and Clarke (1675-1729), a
disciple of Newton, which took place between 1715 and 1716.
Leibniz said the following in the fourth paragraph of his third
letter to Clarke, [2]: As for my opinion, I have said more than
once, that I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is;
that I hold it to be an order of coexistences, as time is an order of
successions.
Ernst Mach (1838-1916) also rejected the employment of abso-
lute time in physics. His points of view as regards time were
presented clearly on pp. 273, 287 and 295 of his book The Science
of Mechanics, published originally in 1883. He proposed to replace
the time which appears in Newtons laws of motion by the angle
of rotation of the planets with respect to the fixed stars. For in-
stance, on p. 295 of his book he wrote the following, [3]: We
measure time by the angle of rotation of the earth, but could
measure it just as well by the angle of rotation of any other plan-
et.
We agree with Leibniz and Mach as regards the time concept.
However, in this work we will utilize the expression relational
time instead of relative time. There are two main reasons for
this choice: (a) To avoid confusion with the time concept which
appears in Einsteins special and general theories of relativity. (b)
To comply with Relational Mechanics, a formulation which im-
plements Machs principle quantitatively, [4] and [5].
In this work we consider the implementation of relational
time in physics. Our goal is to consider the consequences arising
with this implementation.
2. Relational Time
We consider the material bodies as the primary entities of
physics. The basic and primitive concepts are: (a) Gravitational
mass, (b) electrical charge, (c) distance between material bodies,
(e) force or interaction between material bodies. We do not define
these basic concepts, since we wish to avoid vicious circles. These
primitive concepts are necessary to define more complex con-
cepts.
It is observed that the positions of bodies among themselves
change, they are not fixed. The changes of things lead to an ab-
stract concept, that of relational time. Relational time is an ab-
straction created by man at which we arrive by means of the
Vol. 8
changes of things. It is a measure of duration by means of the
mutual motions of bodies among themselves.
Mach has a very clear statement on page 273 of his book, [3]:
It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of
things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction, at which
we arrive by means of the changes of things; made because we
are not restricted to any one definite measure, all being intercon-
nected. A motion is termed uniform in which equal increments of
space described correspond to equal increments of space de-
scribed by some motion with which we form a comparison, as
the rotation of the earth. A motion may, with respect to another
motion, be uniform. But the question whether a motion is in itself
uniform, is senseless. With just as little justice, also, may we
speak of absolute time-of a time independent of change. This
absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception.
We agree that we can only compare a motion with another
motion. Here we want to analyze the consequences of this point
of view for physics as a whole. Our comparison will be with
Newtonian physics, in which the motion of bodies is considered
to take place in absolute time, which has no relation to anything
external.
3. Motion in Newtonian Mechanics
In this Section we consider motion according to Newtonian
mechanics.
Let us analyze the flattening of the Earth. The Earth has an
average mass density, E , given by E 5.5 103 kg / m 3 . Due to
its diurnal rotation around the North-South direction, the Earth
takes essentially the form of an ellipsoid of revolution. With a
period of one day, the angular velocity of the Earth relative to an
inertial frame of reference is given by d 7.3 105 rad / s . In
Proposition XIX of Book III of the Principia Newton calculated the
figure of the Earth. He concluded that its diameter at the equator
was to its diameter from pole to pole as 230 to 229. That is, the
diameter from East to West should be 0.4% larger than the diam-
eter from North to South. Let us call d E the Earths diameter at
the equator, d P its diameter from pole to pole, and f this frac-
tional flattening. According to Newtonian mechanics and utiliz-
ing the International System of Units (in which the universal
gravitational constant G has the value G 6.7 1011 m 3 / kg 1 s 2 ),
the fractional flattening is given by:
dE dP 15 d2
f 0.004 (1)
dP 16G E
This prediction was confirmed later on by geodetic measure-
ments.
The fractional flattening f is inversely proportional to the
Earths average mass density. This flattening is also proportional
to the square of the dynamical angular velocity of the Earth rela-
tive to absolute space, measured by absolute time. That is, it is
proportional to d2 .
College Park, MD 2011 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA
4. Questionable Aspects of Absolute Motion
There are several aspects of Newtonian mechanics which are
questionable. We analyze each one of them here, concentrating
our analysis in the figure of the Earth, as this is a concrete exam-
ple.
(a) The flattening f is inversely proportional to E . If we
could increase or decrease this mass density, the flattening
would decrease or increase, respectively. But increase or decrease
E in comparison to what? If there is no other mass density to
compare to, this statement makes no sense. From a Machian
perspective, the flattening should be proportional to the ratio
0 / E , where 0 is the mass density of some other body for
comparison. This other body should not be arbitrary. That is, it
should affect causally the flattening of the Earth.
(b) According to Newton, this fractional change depends up-
on the angular rotation of the Earth relative to absolute space (or
relative to an inertial frame of reference, as stated in modern
textbooks). In principle the distant universe composed of stars
and galaxies could disappear without affecting f. This conse-
quence is not intuitive. After all, if the Earth were alone in the
universe, it would not make sense to speak of its rotation. Ac-
cording to a Machian perspective, the flattening of the Earth
should disappear if the distant stars and galaxies also disap-
peared. That is, somehow f should be directly proportional to the
mean gravitational matter density of the universe. This should be
the meaning of 0 in the previous item.
This aspect has been clearly seen by Clarke in his fifth reply to
Leibniz, [2]:
It is affirmed [by Leibniz], that motion necessarily implies a
relative change of situation in one body, with regard to other
bodies: and yet no way is shown to avoid this absurd conse-
quence, that then the mobility of one body depends on the exist-
ence of other bodies; and that any single body existing alone,
would be incapable of motion; or that the parts of a circulating
body, (suppose the sun,) would lose the vis centrifuga arising
from their circular motion, if all the extrinsic matter around them
were annihilated.
(c) If the Earth could rotate faster or slower, its flattening
would increase or decrease, respectively. But rotate faster or
slower relative to what? How can we know that the Earth is
rotating faster or slower, if there is no other motion to compare
to?
(d) Newton believed that it was possible to distinguish abso-
lute motions from relative ones. In the Scholium in the beginning
of Book I of the Principia he made a very interesting discussion
related to two globes connected by a cord. We quote his words
here, but replacing the globes by the Earth, and replacing the
tension of the cord by the flattening of the Earth. Due to these
replacements of words, the next quotation goes in italic, instead
of utilizing quotation marks:
It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and to effectually
to distinguish, the true motions of particular bodies from the apparent.
[] Yet the thing is not altogether desperate [] As the Earth revolves
about its center of gravity, we can, from its flattening, discover its
endeavor to recede from the axis of its motion, and from thence we can
compute the quantity of its circular motion. And thus we can find both
3
the quantity and determination of this circular motion, even in an
immense vacuum, where there is nothing external or sensible with
which the Earth could be compared. But now, if in that space some
remote bodies were placed that kept always a given position to one
another, as the fixed stars do in our regions, we could not indeed deter-
mine from the relative translation of the Earth among those bodies,
whether the motion did belong to the Earth or to the bodies. But if we
observed the figure of the Earth, and found that its flattening was that
very flattening which the motion of the Earth required, we might con-
clude the motion to be in the Earth, and the bodies to be at rest.
That is, according to Newton there are two situations which
are kinematically equivalent: (I) The fixed stars at rest and the
Earth spinning once a day; and (II) the Earth at rest and the set of
fixed stars spinning around it once a day. Considering only this
relative rotation between the Earth and the fixed stars, it is not
possible to know which body is really in motion.
However, Newton believed these two situations could be dis-
tinguished dynamically. In situation (I) the Earth would be flat-
tened at the poles, while in situation (II) the figure of the Earth
would be spherical. In Newtonian mechanics the Earths flatten-
ing is a function of its absolute motion relative to absolute space,
as measured by absolute time.
This is a questionable interpretation of this flattening. From a
Machian perspective, there is only the rotation of the Earth rela-
tive to the frame of distant stars and galaxies. The flattening of
the Earth should be directly proportional to this relative rotation.
Whenever the rotation of the Earth relative to the frame of dis-
tant galaxies is the same, the same flattening should arise, no
matter which bodies were in motion. Consider for the moment
the existence of an arbitrary frame of reference R. When the
frame of distant galaxies is at rest in this frame and the Earth
rotates once a day in this frame of reference, its 0.004 flattening
appears, as in situation (I) above. From a Machian perspective,
the same flattening should also arise if the Earth remained sta-
tionary in R, while the frame of distant galaxies rotated once a
day around the North-South axis of the Earth, as in situation (II)
above.
This has been clearly seen by Mach. When discussing New-
tons bucket experiment he said the following:
[3, p. 279]: Try to fix Newtons bucket and rotate the heaven
of fixed stars and then prove the absence of centrifugal forces.
The analogous statement applied to the Earths rotation and
taking into account the distant galaxies, not known by Mach,
might be as follows: Try to fix the Earth and rotate the heaven of
distant galaxies and then prove the absence of the Earths flattening.
Although he could not create a working mechanics imple-
menting this idea, Mach believed this was possible. On page 284
of his book he said, [3]: The principles of mechanics can, indeed,
be so conceived, that even for relative rotations centrifugal forces
arise.
5. Motion in Relational Mechanics
We now consider the same motion according to Relational
Mechanics, which is based upon Webers law for gravitation, [6].
The equation of motion of any test particle is due to its interac-
tion with the distant galaxies. We need to integrate Webers law
over the whole universe. The size of the known universe is given
4 Assis: Consequences of Relational Time
by Hubbles radius R0 c / H 0 1026 m , where c 3108 m is the
value of light velocity in vacuum and H 0 3 10 18
s 1
is Hub-
bles constant. If the universe is infinite, R 0 may represent a
characteristic length of gravitational interactions. For instance, it
might represent the effective length of gravitational interactions
due to an exponential decay in the gravitational force.
The flattening of the Earth is given by, [4] and [5]:
d d P 5 EU
2
0 completely clarified by Relational Mechanics.
f E 0.004
dP 8 H 02 E
In this Equation is a dimensionless number. Its value is 6 if
we work with a finite universe and integrate Webers law for
gravitation until Hubbles radius. If we work with Webers law
and an exponential decay in gravitation, we can integrate up to
infinity. In this last situation we get 12 .
The flattening is proportional to 0 3 102 7 kg / m 3 , the av-
erage gravitational mass density of the distant universe. The
values of R 0 , 0 and H 0 are not yet known with great precision.
But the order of magnitude of these quantities is compatible with
the observed flattening of 0.004. We can also utilize this observed
value of f, together with the known values of E and EU 2
, to
derive the value of 5 0 / 8H 02 .
The flattening is also inversely proportional to the average
gravitational mass density of the Earth, E 5.5 103 kg / m 3 . The
important aspect to emphasize here is that only the ratio 0 / E
is relevant for Relational Mechanics. We can decrease the flatten-
ing by increasing E (supposing a planet made of liquid mercu-
ry, for instance), or by hypothetically decreasing 0 . In principle,
if we could annihilate the extrinsic matter around the Earth,
making 0 0 , the Earths flattening would also disappear,
f 0 . That is, Relational Mechanics implements mathematical-
ly the consequence which Clarke considered absurd in his corre-
spondence with Leibniz.
The flattening is proportional to EU
2
, that is, to the square of
EU . This symbol represents the angular velocity of the Earth
relative to the distant universe. This means that only the relative
rotation between the Earth and the frame of distant galaxies is
relevant in Relational Mechanics. This consequence is completely
Machian. There will be the same flattening of the Earth no matter
if the Earth rotates relative to an arbitrary frame of reference
while the distant universe remains stationary in this frame, as in
situation (I) above, or if the distant universe rotates in the oppo-
site direction relative to this frame of reference while the Earth
remains stationary in this frame, as in situation (II) above. That is,
provided the quantitative relative rotation between the Earth and
the distant universe is the same in both cases, the same flattening
of the Earth arises. If there is one relative turn per day, so that
EU 7.3 105 rad / s , then f 0.004 in situations (I) and (II).
The flattening of the Earth cannot be considered anymore as a
proof of the real or absolute rotation of the Earth, as Newton
thought.
Relational Mechanics implements mathematically Machs
idea according to which the Ptolemaic and Copernican modes of
view are equivalent not only kinematically, but also dynamically.
Vol. 8
That is, the same flattening of the Earth arises not only in the
Copernican world view in which the distant universe is at rest
and the Earth rotates once a day, but also in the Ptolemaic world
view in which the Earth is stationary and the distant universe
rotates around it once a day.
6. An Open Question in Relational Mechanics
Here we want to discuss something which has not yet been
(1)
If the Earth might turn in relation to the distant universe 3
times faster than usual, its flattening would be 9 times larger,
namely, f 0.036 . The reason is that f is proportional to EU
2
.
But when we say that the Earth is rotating 3 times faster than
normal, we need to compare it with something else. The compar-
ison should not be with our wrist clock. In order to understand
this conclusion, we can consider an astronaut in a spaceship
recording a video. The video should include the rotation of the
Earth and other motions in the universe. Let us suppose that the
normal rate of this video is 30 frames per second (fps).
By watching this video in fast motion, with 90 fps, we would
find all velocities increased to three times their normal values.
However, the flattening would remain the same in the fast mo-
tion video, namely, f 0.004 . The reason is that not only the
Earth would appear to us spinning 3 times faster than usual, but
the same would happen to all other velocities recorded in this
video (sound velocity, a projectile motion, the velocity of a satel-
lite, the angular velocity of galaxies etc.)
The flattening would also remain the same in a slow motion
video. Even if the astronaut takes a picture of the Earth, so that
the Earth appears stationary, its flattening will remain.
The same conclusion is reached by any inhabitant of the
Earth. The ground below our foot does not move relative to us
during a whole day, so that the Earth appears as stationary in
relation to us. Despite this fact, it remains flattened at the poles.
The conclusion is that the amount of flattening is not a func-
tion of our clock or measuring time device.
From a Machian point of view, the amount of flattening
should be proportional to a ratio of two motions. (a) The square
of the angular velocity of the Earth in relation to the frame of
distant galaxies. (b) The square of another velocity related to
other motions in the universe. The open question is that up to
now we dont know what are these other motions in the universe
which might be connected with the flattening of the Earth.
The flattening of the Earth in Relational Mechanics is propor-
tional to the square of the angular velocity of the Earth relative to
the universal frame of reference. The flattening is also inversely
proportional to the square of Hubbles constant. This suggests
that Hubbles constant should be connected to other motions in
the universe. Somehow Hubbles constant must be like an aver-
age frequency of oscillation and/or rotation of the matter in the
universe; or the average angular velocity of the galaxies in the
universe; or the average angular velocity of microscopic particles
inside the Earth or spread around the universe; or it might be
related with light velocity; or
We postulate that if everything did move faster or slower, in-
creasing or decreasing its pace by the same rate, no effects would
arise in the behavior of bodies. For instance, the flattening of the
College Park, MD 2011 PROCEEDINGS of the NPA 5
Earth should remain the same if it could rotate three times faster
than usual, provided all other motions did also increase three
times their pace.
On the other hand, it is known that the centrifugal effects
have larger magnitudes when the spinning body rotates faster
relative to other motions in the universe. A Machian perspective
suggests the opposite effect. That is, if the Earth could keep its
pace of rotation, while all other motions in the universe did move
slower, the Earths flattening should also increase. In an hypo-
thetical situation in which we could stop all other motions in the
universe (the rotation of galaxies, the rotation of electrons and so
on), while the Earth were still spinning in relation to the set of
distant galaxies, its flattening should tend to infinity. That is, the
Earth would explode in this hypothetical situation.
But what other motions are specifically connected with the
flattening of the Earth? The spin of the electrons? The average
rotation of the galaxies relative to the frame of distant galaxies?
The velocity of photons? The vibrations of atoms?
This is an open question which requires further investigation.

References
[1] I. Newton. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. University
of California Press, Berkeley, 1934. Cajori edition.
[2] H. G. Alexander (ed.). The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence. Manches-
ter University Press, Manchester, 1984.
[3] E. Mach. The Science of Mechanics A Critical and Historical Account
of Its Development. Open Court, La Salle, 1960.
[4] A. K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics. Apeiron, Montreal, 1999. ISBN:
0968368921. Available at: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/.
[5] A. K. T. Assis, The principle of physical proportions, Annales de
la Fondation Louis de Broglie 29: 149-171 (2004).
[6] A. K. T. Assis, Webers Electrodynamics (Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers, Dordrecht, 1994). ISBN: 0792331370.